User talk:Mkmcconn/Scratchpad

The article does start ok. And it does get pretty bad along the way. Tom 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This conflict is very hard to characterize. I think one of the most interesting things you say, and that begs the explanation we are having such a hard time finding, is "A Protestant sees Christianity distorted in Roman Catholicism. He sees it lost in Mormonism." Why? Is it rational? Is it emotional? What is the conflict? Why does Joe the Protestant spend so much effort trying to classify Catholicism or Mormonism? Or rather does he instinctively gag at Mormonism and then spend subsequent effort declassifying it? I think the sociological whys of the conflict are at least as interesting as the theological whys. I remember when I was younger I (please forgive me) sometimes wished I could storm the Jehovah's Witnesses building with a machine gun. What an evil impulse, and how contrary to the spirit of Christ! What makes us feel so strongly about "infidels"? Tom 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The article steers clear of defining what is christianity; that is good. The article talks about a historic conflict; that is good. The article perhaps doesn't explain why the most strident voices of opposition to Mormonism are found within the evangelical community; should it? Tom 19:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't see answers yet, for how to make a quality encyclopedia out of this issue. I'll occasionally plug away at my experiment, to see if it helps. Initially, I would say that anti-Mormonism is motivated primarily for defense. It arises from the perception that Christianity is under attack, by Mormonism as much as by Islam or atheism; although the nature of the perceived attack is different in each case. Mkmcconn — 21:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Most Mormons wouldn't see anti-Mormonism motivated primarily by defense. And by anti-Mormonism I mean something probably narrower than the way you use it and I mean it in the way that Mormons would generally mean by anti-Mormonism. When Mormons think of anti-Mormonism, they generally think of those who go out of their way to proselytize anti-Mormonism. Folks who show up to demonstrate at LDS temples, pageants, conferences and such handing out literature to Mormons and non-Mormons alike. Folks like Jerald and Sandra Tanner or Ed Decker who publish anti-Mormonism for general public consumption. As far as whatever polemic, for example, the Catholic church or Church of Christ may preach in church against Mormons, for the most part, as odd as it may seem, Mormons could care less because in those situations these Christians don't go out of their way to proselytize their polemic to the general public...just within their own congregation. in reality, the polemic that takes place within mainstream Christian churchs probably by far outweighs the activity of the smaller group of those whom Mormons consider "anti-Mormons" even though much/most/all of those polemics might be as equal as harsh as any anti-Mormonism preached. In the minds of Mormons, most anti-Mormons are ex-Mormons and sometime evangelicals. I'm not sure how Mormons would characterize the disputation of Mormonism inside the doors of mainstream Christian churches...it wouldn't be called "anti-Mormonism"..."propaganda" maybe, but not anti-Mormonism. —B|Talk 02:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What needs to be kept in mind, though, is that the churches are grateful consumers of material by the Tanners, and supporters of groups like Saints Alive or Ex-Mormons for Jesus. Mkmcconn — 02:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my mouth, Mkmcconn. The distinction is a fine one, and the issues are essentially the same. Tom 17:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your essay has some useful thoughts about the purpose of the M&C article. To me it is obvious that such an article is needed, but your essay may help to give some needed direction as to the article's purpose. You've given more thought to it than I have and have given me some things to think about. Many the thoughts in your essay should be stated in the M&C article. It is also clear to me that you have a pretty good grasp of Mormonism. It fascinates me that mainstream Christians, like yourself, who understand the Mormon conception of God well and find it so distasteful. —B|Talk 02:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for both sets of comments. I think though that nothing quite useful will come out of this until it's crystalized into a practical agenda for how to guide and improve the article; while as it is, the essay is mostly only critical of the existing M&C, and groping for what should take its place. BTW, as you might expect, the fascination is mutual from the other side. Mkmcconn — 02:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is something insightful in that fascination, I think. I have a hunch that B's fascination doesn't carry eternal import for M's soul. But I imagine that M's carries import for B's eternal soul. And that is an important distinction in the conflict. Mormonism compels us to believe that we simply have to follow Christ in faith with full purpose of heart and trust in the justice and mercy of God in Christ to reward every other person as richly as possible according to their desires, thoughts, words, and deeds. Whether M believes in Mormonism is not of crucial eternal import to B, I surmise. But M's doctrine compels him to believe that unless B has faith in the correct conception of God in Christ, his eternal hope is lost. This is a key distinction. I believe it plays out over and over in the dynamic of the conflict. Mormons want to work and convert, and they have a partisan desire to "grow the church". They also believe there are benefits of temporal and eternal happiness in Mormonism. But they are compelled to accept that "it will all work out fairly in the end, by the grace of God in Christ." But for other Christians, Mormons are lost, period. Tom 03:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is a very useful beginning. You did a good job highlighting the key difference (from this side), and I especially liked your frog analogy.

I would suggest that there are two main motivations for "anti-Mormonism" among trinitarian Christians: first, to keep their current members from ever considering joining a Mormon church; second; to persuade current Mormons to leave Mormonism. Underlying both of these motives is the belief that true teaching is helpful and healing to a person, and false teaching is correspondingly harmful. So there is the underlying motive to spare current parishioners from harm, and to save Mormons from harm as well. This motive extends to the motive for more generalized evangelism and missionary efforts as well, of course.

When someone reads the early fathers when they spoke of various heresies and heretics of their day, some of their language would make today's anti-Mormon tracts look positively tame, or at least keep up with them. Of course Mormons are treated differently than, say, Jews or Buddhists because Jews and Buddhists generally don't pretend to be Christian.... with a few exceptions in the New Age-ish camp perhaps, where the goal seems to be to become as fuzzy as possible. Wesley 22:33, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So far your scratch pad seems generally thoughtful and sometimes passionate. The thoughts and goals you express are probably good ones for Wikipedia. As I have considered this carefully lately, I have realized that, for example, the current article says nowhere the following, which are explanatory and factual:

Mormonism denies doctrine of the Holy Trinity
Mormonism denies the doctrine of sola scriptura

I don't think it can be definitely said that Mormonism denies sola fide, though some Mormons may. Some adherents throughout Christendom do. It may help in the article, as an explanatory tack, to define and state which doctrines the mainstream Christian thinkers hold as non-negotiable (essential) that Mormonism denies. Of course, such an explanatory tack only works if, say, the Catholic Church does not also deny the same doctrines. Your focus on the Holy Trinity is a good first Mormon denial that could be built on. Tom 19:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that this line of thinking tends again toward detailing the doctrinal differences between Mormonism and its Christian opponents, which is what the article already does (which is what I'm suggesting is wrong about the article). These could be detailed endlessly, and it would not really explain the relationship, "Mormonism and Christianity".

Unless we want the M&C article to simply be an additional explanation of Mormon distinctives, it should have a differently focused intention. For example, what does it mean if ...

it is alleged that the LDS is self-consciously attempting to "mainstream" itself?
some evangelical political organizations court Mormon collaboration?
80% of conversions to the LDS are allegedly from Protestant background?
the Roman Catholic Church, United Methodists, PCUSA, and others, do not recognize Mormon baptism but recognize one another's?

These kinds of details, and many others, are not explainable only in terms of Mormon distinctives. We should attempt to describe and explain the relationship. For some particular relationships, a doctrinal issue is more relevant than for others; but even where doctrine is central, there is an expansive reason for this. For example, isn't it interesting that most anti-Mormon material focuses on statements that are more than 100 years old, and often at least partially obsolete? Why is this? Who is the intended audience? What is their goal? Mkmcconn — 23:02, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Very insightful again. You really are keeping us on track. Is it too far off track to pursue the line of reasoning I brought up once upon a time that in the regions of hottest conflict, Christians are particularly desirous to shed all descriptive qualifiers and wear the simple label of "Christian"? Here's what I am thinking about this mindset:

All "isms" are bad.
There is just one holy, cahtolic church
All christians should be in communion
We are not Protestants, Catholics, Assyrian Christians (Nestorians), Baptists, Presbyterians, Unitarians, Eastern Orthodoxists; we are all Christians, all one body we. One in hope and doctrine.
What religion am I? I am a Christian. What kind of Christian? Oh, well, you know. Just a Christian. I don't go much for "isms."

Mormonism doesn't play this game. Mormonism is not in communion with the other churches (even Mormon subsects are not in communion with each other), and never has been. A Mormon feels somewhat dishonest if he fails to qualify what kind of Christian he is. He knows there are differences, and, while he knows he is a follower of Jesus Christ, he knows he is not some generic brand of "Christian", but comes shrink-wrapped with his own branding. Tom 17:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I go so far as to surmise that Mormons would not bat an eye at being defined out of the Christian fold if it were not for the name of Christ. Mormons take seriously the vow to receive the name of Christ. So while they are not hip to be in the classification with the other churches, they will assert to their death that they are disciples of Christ as much as the next guy and owe to nobody any giving up of the name of the only Way, Truth, and Life. Tom 17:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is not the way that Christians perceive "Mormons are Christians 2" bumperstickers. It sounds to their ear like a plea for acceptance. The Mormon media campaign is also perceived as being directed at people who already would define themselves as somewhat religious, and Christian. Much anti-Mormon literature is premised on this perception, that Mormons deceptively disguise their distinctives, and even allow the majority of their own members to remain in the dark about what the Church actually teaches. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. !!! Ditto ditto ditto. I think Mormons are painfully aware of this reality you describe. And this may be headed somewhere. We just still don't know where :-).

Consider two contrasting examples:

In Texas a Mormon missionary pair knocks on a door. The lady of the house says, "We are Christians". The missionaries say, "We are Christians too." Oh, what bristles this raises on the back of the local pastors when word gets around to them! Those shameless masqueraders!
In Mexico a Mormon missionary pair knocks on a door. The lady of the house says, "We are Catholic." The missionaries say, "Our message is for people of all religions." Quite a different dynamic. While the local priest may chafe, he doesn't consider the Mromon missionaries imposters, just sheep-stealers. Tom 17:56, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes; a very different dynamic. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:08, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Salvation

I don't know if the following is intended to be POV or NPOV: "Mormons who despite what their religion teaches trust in Christ, rather than themselves, for rescue from everlasting alienation from God." It is a misinformed POV, as I understand. Temple, Book of Mormon, Bible, Sunday School, seminary, and institute in LDS Mormonism (presumably the biggest offender) all teach that only Christ redeems from alienation from God. In Mormon parlance, the sufferings and death of the Holy Messiah save from the spiritual death, which is hell. Mormonism does not teach the Calvinist view that humans are incapable of free-will acceptance of the love of Christ, but it does teach that all humans are incapable of escaping hell. This is an area where Mormons believe their critics persist in drawing false differences. Every Mormon child learns that that the first principle of the gospel is "faith in the Lord Jesus Christ", the second is repentance. I wasn't sure only a few days ago whether it would be all that important to the task at hand, but I am increasingly of the opinion that you are going to have to understand Mormonism better at a deeper, day-to-day level to be able to write factually on this subject. The list I copied to your User:talk page may have to be hammered out before you can proceed and succeed. And to do it, I think we need regular input from other Mormon editors, because I don't want to throw you off the trail with any non-centric views or understandings I may have picked up over the years. Tom 19:43, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In that context, I am describing the typical evangelical weakness for a subjective measure of "who is saved". They are typically told, Mormons are taught that salvation is by works and ritual. If there is a Mormon who does not believe this, and instead trusts in Christ, then hypothetically such a person can be saved - this is the broad evangelical view of things (not my own).

In my view (and understand that the scratchpad is talking about how I see the situation, and is not an encyclopedia article, or suitable for conversion to one), this is part of the reason that broad evangelicals are especially susceptible to conversion. Their understanding of the gospel is vague, and not historically informed; and their information regarding Mormonism is filtered through anti-Mormon writers. The worse the distortion, the more likely in the end that a confrontation with real Mormonism will successfully result in a conversion, or at least greater toleration. But it is conversions to Mormonism, and an even broader confusion about the difference between Mormonism and biblical Christianity, that provides the motivation for the anti-Mormon writers. My thesis there is that a certain brand of anti-Mormonism ultimately aids the acceptance of Mormonism.

And that is what Mormons have always told themselves. "In the end it does their cause more harm than good." Tom 20:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

But in any case, it is always going to be necessary to clarify what Mormons think their opponents get wrong about what they believe. An explanation of Mormonism is necessary in the M&C article; it just should be placed solidly in the broader context of the conflict, which should form the main part of the description. Not all of the conflict is explainable in terms of misunderstanding of what Mormonism teaches. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right. Tom 20:47, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What if...

What if we start with headlines only, followed by just a few sentences for each. Next we build paragraphs, and so on. Each process has a minimum timeline of a week to complete, just so we can think about it, edit, then come back.

I'm going to make some bold edits to this scratchpad, and I think they'll point out why renovating is so much harder than agreeing with the foundation, then building on something we agree on. Sterlingbates 05:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for being willing to give it a try. Mkmcconn (Talk) 06:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out here, S. I'm afraid your edits might be more in the direction of the current article than in a different direction M is proposing. What he is proposing to do is write about the conflict, about anti-Mormonism, antagonism, why it exists, what perpetuates it (I think). The problem that happens when we Mormon editors get going (as in the current article) is that it ends up looking like a pamphlet "Who are the Mormons?" This should theoretically be covered in other articles. So why does M and C exist? Good question. I think it is because conflict in M and C is a very big deal, and it is important to document and explain it. If we fail to mention that, oh, by the way, Mormonism is actually extremely controversial within Christianity, we are not being NPOV, and yet it doesn't fit in any one other article. It is a real toughie. Whew! Tom 07:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I propose you move your edits to this talk page for discussion (or incorporate them boldly into the M and C article directly as appropriate). I think we need the freshness of M's deleted prose (besides it being his personal page and all). :-P Tom 07:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, good point, sorry everyone :-) I approached it as a public page. Although I changed the first section quite a bit, I've incorporated other comments in the article (it's easier to establish context that way). If that isn't a good idea either, I'll change that too. Sterlingbates 07:40, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind them where they are - only, keep in mind that the page is mostly me thinking out loud, not the model of what the M&C article should look like. Mkmcconn (Talk) 08:39, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Misconceptions

Mkmcconn, don't forget that Mormonism also teaches that an "intimate fellowship with the God, the Father, is free to all." :-) In fact, most of my latest edits are around misconceptions. By the way, what's the difference between traditional Christianity and evangelical Christianity? Sterlingbates 07:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"free to all" is not the same thing, if you mean only that the door is opened and instructions are given for making your way along the shining path upward. You mean free as in free will. We mean free as in finished, and in possession. More clarification can no doubt be helpful, but ... \

... this is another example of what I mean by the danger of getting bogged down into carrying on the battle, instead of reporting on it. No question, we get things wrong who are trying to describe and distinguish Mormon teaching; but I know from my inexpert and limited personal experience that I am never allowed to have got it right. It is a trap, if we try to describe the conflict by recounting it blow by blow; and this "me trying to describe you, say the difference is X", and "you saying X is wrong, in fact we say X", is how the battle goes, blow by blow. \

And yet, something useful can be learned about the combat, which we know by having been part of it, which is not itself part of the fight. It's on this presently-blurry something, that we need to gain focus. Mkmcconn (Talk) 08:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To be frank, your description of traditional/evangelical Christianity reads more like a tract than an attempt to describe general differences. Fluffy phrases like "Out of this gift proceeds a life of gratitude rather than of servile striving for acceptance with God" have no place, since it's my own experience that out of Mormonism "proceeds a life of gratitude rather than of servile striving for acceptance with God." What you perceive as "servile striving" is nothing more than repentance and an attempt to grow as an individual. I have no doubt Protestants believe in repentance (changing one's ways when they are offensive to God)? Sterlingbates 15:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Whether you like my "fluffy phrase" or not, the fact of the matter is that these are the terms in which my faith is explained accurately. And of course you will say that you can say the same thing. That's what we've come to expect Mormons to say. Trying to show the difference hidden in what Mormons say, and to explain the difference that it makes, accounts for the majority of anti-Mormon activity over the last fifty years, since Mormons started increasingly insisting on being called "Christians too". Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

M, I expect better of you. Are you expressing the prevailing conflict here or your own understanding? You know full well that Mormonism called itself Christian from day one. You are complaining about trying to hit a moving target, but we are having the hardest time too. We have to get to the point that we trust each other implicitly to shoot straight. Otherwise there is no hope at all in any of this, and the article is doomed to be a POV mess. Tom 20:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know certainly that Mormonism has called itself Christian from the start (in contrast to the "sectarians" and the "Christian world"). What I'm talking about is not calling themselves "Christians", but "Christians too". This comes across very differently. Mkmcconn (Talk) 06:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll certainly grant that you can say those words -- that's not my meaning. My meaning is that they are equally applicable to Mormonism, and are subjective at best, since I can guarantee that not all Protestants proceed with a life of gratitude (nor do all Mormons). Thus the words should be removed, since it implies that Protestants have the monopoly on the gratitude market. Sterlingbates 18:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This scratchpad is intended to illustrate to you, so that you perceive the problem sympathetically with me, why writing M&C as primarily a comparison piece cannot work. Mkmcconn (Talk)

What do you propose in place of a comparison? Perhaps we look at scrapping the article altogether? (Only half serious about that.) Sterlingbates 19:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I suggest, for one thing, that we should provide a structure that guides the selection of comparisons. We should frame the description of the conflict in such a way that primary issues stand out, and secondary issues cannot force their way forward to the bottom of an ever-growing list of the items of disagreement. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:22, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm also interested in why you insist that Mormonism is infringing on your territory. You have probably learned that Protestants (or evangelical Christians, or whatever) have a) not always enjoyed such close associations, nor have always shared their baptism, sacraments, etc, and b) have only been around for 500 years, which gives you only a few hundred more years than Mormonism. That does not make your position stronger or more valid, it simply gives you age. Sterlingbates 18:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You perceive us through your religion, just as we perceive you through ours. There is no way around that. As I perceive your comment above, for example, it appears to me to serve your purposes if evangelicals and catholics remain as divided as possible. Then you can say with credibility that we have 'only been around for 500 years'. This is not the way we see ourselves; it is the way you see us. You don't see this as a misrepresentation of the facts, because you believe your religious perspective to be right about the meaning of the facts. Mkmcconn (Talk) 19:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't have a purpose to serve here, aside from factual correctness. I merely point out that while you can paint a rosy picture of the current state of mainstream Christian religion, you have been divided for most of your history. I also would point out that your traceable history goes back to the 4th and 5th centuries C.E. (assuming you trace lineage through Catholicism). Even if mainstream Christianity could trace further literal roots, it's still not far enough to claim greater authority than Mormonism. You have to be clear that the Bible explicitly teaches what you think it teaches. Since the contents of the Bible are still disputed by mainstream Christian leaders and scholars, there really is no resolution to either side. Sterlingbates 19:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And I say again, that the perceptions of "factual correctness", and what constitutes a distortion or a misrepresentation, is not a religiously neutral issue. Mkmcconn (Talk) 20:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I say in the scratchpad, an article that reads like the current M&C is not really an encyclopedia article. It is a tract, like this scratchpad is at the start. And my intention in this page, is to extricate myself from self-explanation (the trap M&C has fallen into), to find the platform on which a more suitable approach can be found. Here, I am trying to start badly, and end better (as M&C starts well and ends badly). Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stripped out comment...it was inappropriate and silly. Sorry. Sterlingbates 16:06, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On this page, the rules are a bit different. I make no pretense of being neutral, here, and you needn't do so either. This is an attempt to clarify what is wrong with the M&C article, and to find a way out. But, you're getting the idea of why clarification of beliefs only draws us into the very battle itself. To make that article NPOV, by giving equal time, would only ruin it further. To be really "equal", the exchange of clarification and counter-explanations must go on for as long as the disagreement goes on. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:29, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent — the disagreement has toiled endlessly for decades, we won't settle it here. However, I do think that we both need to settle on facts and confirmable statements by those in authority to make those statements. You and I will not change, nor should we. So the attempt to continue in subjective and feel-good ways is ineffective. Sterlingbates 18:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

By the way, what's the difference between traditional Christianity and evangelical Christianity?

There was this thing called the Reformation. It is contended by Catholics that Protestants do not know, or care, about Christian Tradition. And so, at times they see us as accidental passengers on the tradition train (as in the fight with Mormon anti-trinitarianism); in other things, we take on the aspect of train-robbers, in their eyes (as when we parade "sola fide", "sola gratia", "sola scriptura", and "solus Christus", as though these were the settled summary of all Christian doctrine and tradition). Mkmcconn (Talk) 08:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So you can see that there are two sides to the picture, let each side make it's peace. We aren't writing M&C for idiots who can't read for themselves. We're writing it to present two sides of an issue. Sterlingbates 18:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Determining facts

I figured I'd start a new thread. As Mkmcconn stated, determining what the facts are is not easy. I first propose that a "fact" be an official statement made by the chief authority of a given religion. I'm sure this'll get blended and pureed, but at least it's a starting point. Sterlingbates 20:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree with the approach to getting the facts--remember this is an encyclopedia, not an act of law--but I am thinking increasingly we need to get a very brief statement of the core differences that neither party is inclined to disputed. Tom

God and Salvation

TC (traditional Christianity) says God is God, Human is Human, Angel is Angel, and Devil is Devil. LDS (LDS Mormonism) says God, Human, Angel, and Devil are all of the same lineage and only differ in quality, history, and position (there is a word for this that Hank Henegraff uses, but I can't remember it). I could expand and explain, but I think that may be the core. Both parties think the other view is deficient in some way. LDS think TC fails to ennoble man and endangers salvation by failing to inspire to sufficient aspiration and greatness. TC thinks LDS fails to revere and adore God by detracting from His wholly incomprehensible transcendence, and endangers salvation by fostering faith in a God not big enough to really save. Both may be correct. Tom 22:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Once upon a time, COGDEN wondered out loud why such a subtle issue, which he called "metaphysics", should matter so much. It matters because salvation is basically God's union with humanity, and our union with Christ. All sorts of issues tumble after one another, out of the core confession of the Trinity.

And if it's helpful to say it, what we think about Mormonism is that it does not confess the Trinity. We might label it by any of a number of descriptions, and try to explain its defects in any number of ways; but what we are trying to get at is that it is not trinitarianism - and we mean that, therefore the salvation that it looks for cannot be participation in God Himself, having his holiness for our holiness, his love for our love. It must, necessarily, claim to accomplish a similar aim by a different means (there cannot be anything higher) - and we cannot allow that it is, in that case, similar. Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that is fair to say. M is not Trinitarian. You should be able to get away with that in polite conversation any day. As for the rest, of course you hold that your conception is best and highest, and so if M is different (which I think we, S, V, B, COGDEN, and I can readily agree), then naturally you hold that M is inferior, as we hold that trinitarianism is inferior.

Mormonism teaches that God's union with humanity is very literal — Father and son (small s). Just as you and your parents feel very strong, enduring love, so we feel the same with God. Where we may be parting ways is in how God saves us. I hear you saying that when an individual confesses the Trinity, all responsibility for their deeds (post-baptism) is removed through the saving grace of Christ. We teach that God will not interfere with our freedom to choose our actions. Our ability to choose (or desire to choose) the good ultimately impacts how we continue to live in the next life. (That is the Justice portion that even Mercy cannot overcome. Mercy will rescue a soul from hell, but Mormonism teaches that it cannot entirely rob Justice.) Even 2 Peter 1:3-11 is very clear that we must choose to live good lives to inherit the Kingdom of God. Mormonism's teaching is entirely concordant with verse 11's conclusion. (I hope I got that right. Tom, correct me if not.) Sterlingbates 01:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it ever frustrates you to be misrepresented, isn't there somewhere in you a sense of what it looks like from this side, to have contradictory things compared with one another on the most superficial basis? You say "union", but you do not mean what I said - surely you see this. You try to portray my views, but you do not have insight into it - it is a caricature. So, you give an example of how the battle is fought, but you do not give clarity to why. Mkmcconn (Talk) 01:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There are 12 major definitions of the word union. I see you saying "union" in the context of "embedded," rather than "connected." The United Auto Workers is a union of individuals, but not of substance. I think I see what you are saying, but not the way you say it :-) I'm also a little surprised at the arrogance of believing that you are the originators of these terms, so you decide who can use it and how. These terms long predate even TC. I think you should provide a Bibilical context for these terms that fortifies your position. Sterlingbates 02:01, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What you are doing, playing with words this way, is why book after book on Mormonism is written. Mkmcconn (Talk) 02:25, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And is really what mystifies us, because we're both using the same language. Clarity is the best cure for misunderstanding. You use the word "union" to describe a relationship, but when I use "union" to describe a relationship you accuse me of playing with your words. Give me an alternative to more clearly understand you. I am not saying you do not have a valid position, I am saying that it's up to you to clarify what that position is, using clear terminology. Sterlingbates 02:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The context was sufficient. You could have helped to clarify the difference, but this is not your first impulse. This is why a comparison article doesn't work. No amount of explanation and clarification is sufficient, because of the nature of the argument. The issue has to be approached in another way, unless you want to use the article to carry on the argument. Mkmcconn (Talk) 03:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. See insertions above. This kind of word mincing and difference minimizing will never do, S. If the word is problematic, find a new word. Try to explain the difference better. Poor M has had so many Mormons tell him that X is not a difference, what is he to do? Isn't Mormonism from the premise different? Forget that he's saying M is inferior to TC or that M is not Christanity (which he is trying hard to avoid saying), and focus instead on the idea of different. Tom

My purpose in "word mincing" (I wouldn't say I'm minimizing differences) is not to portray that there is no difference, but to show that Mormonism teaches the exact same love, devotion, and faith to God as TC, but from a different angle. M doesn't believe it does, and repeatedly insists on editing that way (see "fluffy statement" thread above). Of course there's a difference, and of course it's significant, but we must show deference and respect to each side's perspective. Sterlingbates 05:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The phrase, "the exact same", is more of the same problem. We have, from our beliefs, a motive for how we live - a cause. When I say that the cause of our life toward God is "gratitude" rather than "servile striving", you need not hear this as saying anything about Mormonism at all. It is self-explanation. But as I go on to examine what Mormonism offers as it is viewed through the lens of these beliefs, it stands in stark contrast to that self-explanation and the motive that is attached to it. Similarly, if you perceive me as not showing deference and respect, it is because you are reading what I say through the lens of your beliefs, which obviously import meaning into what I have said that I did not intentionally put there. It is "perspectives" and "perceptions" that I think we should be writing about, in order to reflect accurately on the conflict. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

M, based on years of sincere effort to understand, coupled with personal journeys in faith, I think TC are probably mistaken in the perception of a stark contrast. But I will grant this: Mormonism in its corruption produces wearying servility; Calvinism in its corruption produces apathy. That is a big difference, but between two corrupted forms, both of which deceive about salvation. Lazy "believers" are poor examples. Tom 03:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please understand that I don't believe trinitarianism is inferior. It is different. It has withstood the grueling analysis of thousands of scholars over thousands of years. But surely, over these thousands of years, they have come up with ways of expressing the trinity without diminishing the beliefs of others, so that both can stand tall in presentation. I say that because this M&C article is neither an attack nor persuasion, it is an exposition. Sterlingbates 05:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You make me think that we may have very different ideas of the nature of truth, and the basic problem of self-deception which is at the heart of all that is not right in the world. Mkmcconn (Talk) 05:52, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think I will take a few days' vacation from here. I'll restate my point in, hopefully, good terms. I recognize Tom's much greater ability to work with others, and I hope to learn a lot when I come back! Sterlingbates 06:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would grudgingly accept this: "Evangelical Christianity teaches that Christ accomplishes for the believer a salvation so complete that the one who hopes in him stands in relation to God as though he himself had fully acheived perfect obedience, and fullness of love and holiness: this is his, through Christ given for him." Sterlingbates 06:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would prefer this: "Evangelical Christianity teaches that Christ accomplishes for the believer a salvation that enables him who hopes in Christ to stand in relation to God as though he himself had fully achieved perfect obedience and holiness." Sterlingbates 06:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I would not accept this: "Out of this gift proceeds a life of gratitude rather than of servile striving for acceptance with God." Regardless of the motivation for the remark, only two ideas are being compared. When one says "through religion X I will achieve Y instead of servile Z" it implies a direct connection of "servile Z" to the opposing view. Sterlingbates 06:33, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this has been frustrating. I hope though that it's helpful to see the problems that comparison causes, for writing a neutral article. For my definition of classical Evangelicalism to pass your radar, you want it to be less classical, and less Evangelical. Likewise with what a trinitarian says about salvation: you want to inform him that the issues he says are at stake, are not at stake after all. You are, just like I am, inclined to want to make the opposing viewpoint neutral: but if you do that, you distort it. We are inclined to want to answer, when the opposing view makes a claim. And in answering, we alter the interpretation of the opposing view, which the opponent wants to fix. And so on. Mkmcconn (Talk) \

From my own perspective I was simply removing redundancy :) For instance, "this is his, through Christ given for him" is a repeat of "Christ accomplishes for the believer." The only other thing I left out is "fullness of love," and would be willing to put that back in:

"Evangelical Christianity teaches that Christ accomplishes for the believer a salvation that enables him who hopes in Christ to stand in relation to God as though he himself had fully achieved perfect obedience, love, and holiness." Sterlingbates 17:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contrast this with what Mormons _could_ say about Mormonism:

Could say: "Mormonism proclaims Jesus Christ as the sinner's advocate with the Father, that through His atonement we can all be cleansed from the blood of our sins, that we can be free from the bondage of sin and temptation."

Should say: "Mormonism teaches that salvation is available through Jesus Christ alone; that no individual has any power to produce his or her own salvation to any degree."

I believe I am doing the same editing to your proclaimation of Evangelicalism. Sterlingbates 17:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now, obviously, part of this is a problem that Wikipdedia deals with in every article. Every article requires merging and negotiating among multiple, often conflicting, viewpoints. The difference here is that M&C is supposed to be about a controversy; and in this case defining what is controversial also is controversial. The "M" and the "C" perceive their relationship very differently. They have different ideas of what the conflict is, and why it matters. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And here, M, is where we need to be very careful. The controversy isn't over your opinions and my opinions. We could bring ten Evangelicals to the table, each of which would have a different opinion of what is controversial. To one, X is controversial, but to another X isn't a problem at all. The same can be said of Mormons.

This is why I take issue with your belief that we do not have union with God, or that we have love for God, or that we cannot proceed with a life of gratitude. I personally have all these things, so clearly Mormonism can (though, like TC, does not always) produce a life of gratitude. Sterlingbates 17:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Where the controversies lie are in doctrines, like Trinity vs. (insert description of Mormonism's Godhead here), and continuing revelation through a prophet, and the organization of the church, and the priesthood, and the temple, etc. I think I'll continue Tom's style and add these as headings. Sterlingbates 17:07, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Right. But I think if you interview M close enough you may find that the whole controversy (the modern controversy, for him and his colleagues) boils down to the simple fact that Mormons are non-trinitarians. That of itself doesn't sound very earthshattering to Mormons. Duh, we are non-trinitarian. But what M means is that where to him, God is God, angels are angels, devils are devils, and humans are humans, to us they are all the same species (for lack of a better word) of being, only different in history, status, position, goodness, etc. So we conceptualize salvation a bit differently that they. And other things as well. Our discipleship can be motivated by gratitude (all I, Tom, ever want is to be ever found in the service of Him who Redeemed me. I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God....), our perfection is immediate and real through the law of justification by faith through Christ, and our redemption from sin and hell is by faith in the same suffering servant Isaiah prophesied of. But there are still, as M points out, some differences of conceptualization, all traced back to the fact that we are non-trinitarian. Now, trinitarian Mormons (like Community of Christ ????) would not be lumped in with us, and I would presume M would commune with them in spite of their accpetance of the Book of Mormon; is that true? How close am I starting to get? Tom 05:57, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It comes down to foundations. Mormonism appears to be an attempt to build something similar, or better, on different foundations. It uses the same language, to describe a building that's different from the ground up. Mkmcconn (Talk) 16:15, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If I can take the analogy another step, both buildings have cornerstones, joints, welds, glass, support beams, etc. We both have the foundation in Jesus Christ's atonement, seek to live with God, and ask for the Holy Spirit to guide us. Those are, as I see things, the joints, welds, supports, cornerstones, etc. You call your architectural style "Trinitarian," we call ours...well, something, I've never heard an official name. Let's say "Pluralism" (saw that somewhere, not sure if it's accurate). We need to describe the differences in internal architecture, rather than, as I see it, the welds and joints. Sterling 19:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am not talking about a "style". Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, to me it fit well with your "building" analogy. Sterling 22:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree, Tom, and take I'll take it one tepid step further (lots of steps here <g>). I would say both sides teach that you must believe in certain fundamental teachings about the nature of God to obtain salvation. The Athanasian creed (not sure if TCs believe in that) states that belief in the trinity is absolutely necessary for salvation. Mormonism says the same thing. The reason is that, I think, both sides want to become "like God," whatever form that takes. If we are to aspire to be like God, then we must first understand what He is like, and proceed down the path leading to such qualities. Is that correct? Sterling 19:36, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What you appear to be saying here, S, is that Mormons and traditional Christians ought to find some common ground and recognize that there is really only one Father of us all, whether we call him Allah, Father, Jehovah, or God. You are saying that all of us, Muslims, Jews, Mormons, and traditional Christians, worship the same God, because there is no other holy substance out there to be worshipped, and the quality of our religion is manifested to others by the likeness of God in our daily living. It appears you are appealing to outcome and effect, or the idea that by love shall all men know ye are Christ's disciples. It appears you are trying to appeal to a small sense of universal faith. Tom 20:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not exactly, but close. I think what I'm saying is that, to use Mk's building analogy, we're both building up to something which, in terms of C&M, _can_ be seen as somewhat parallel. Sterling 22:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

All ways to be "like God" are satanic, and all lead to damnation, except that way in which man lives from out of God rather than from out of himself. Mkmcconn (Talk) 18:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What you seem to be saying here, M, is the simple idea that one's religion is of life and death importance to one. And you are asserting your right to declare your allegiance to your point of view. You are rebuffing S's apparent nuzzling up to your faith and saying it isn't superior or special. To you it is superior. To you it is unique. And to you it is miles from Mormonism. And all attempts to blur that understanding are offensive personally to your sense of loyalty to God and your faith. Tom 20:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We're on different pages here, I think. What I'm saying is that man before he fell was "like God", and after he fell he was "like God" - but in the first case he was accepted, and in the second he is condemned. At first he lived from God, but later he lived as a rival. He was created to be an expression of God, but he became as though he were an additional god. In the first condition he lived in the truth, in the second he lived in futility. There are two ways in the world, one to live from God, and the other to live from oneself. But in either condition man is "like God". Mkmcconn (Talk) 21:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tom and Mk, I'm sorry if I'm coming across as trying to nuzzle up. That's not my intention. I'm trying to illustrate that both TC and Mormonism are simply two paintings in the religious art gallery. To the outside world (irreligious and religious) we are just ways of life. In that way the C&M article is different than most -- it is not intended to advertise Mormonism (or TC) in a good or bad light, it is simply to highlight the differences between TC & M. People can go to the TC page for more information on that subject, or to Mormonism. Sterling 22:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And I apologize, S, for speaking ill of your motives. Tom 03:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe that approaching these issues as though we cared nothing about them will give insight into them. Lists of differences can be multiplied, but they do not add insight into why the differences make a difference, unless we explain somehow why they matter. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The problem I see is two-fold. First, who's "why" will we explain? You are not TC, and Tom and I are not Mormonism. Second, history, both wiki and non, shows it will descend into endless innuendo and subtlety. Why would we go there? Sterling 00:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not so. The article begins as we should begin (IMHO). It describes the relationship between Mormonism and Christianity as it started out. It changes in the second half, to describe the relationship as though in modern times it were only a list of different doctrines. Clearly, there is more to it than that. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mk, I apologize for some of my earlier comments. After rereading, I was too quick to reply, and didn't take enough time to read and understand what you were saying (particularly regarding the trinity). My subsequent points (some valid, some not) were not made in the spirit of understanding. I'm certainly learning here (as I'm sure many wikians are also), and doing my best to improve. Sterling 00:19, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not hold this against you. I'm hopeful that we will understand one another better, as we go along. Mkmcconn (Talk) 00:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Salvation (Item closed)

This is tougher for me at this time. Tom 22:35, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

See ==God==, above. Mkmcconn (Talk) 23:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It looks more and more like God and Salvation are linked into one core issue. Tom 03:26, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Christianity

TC thinks LDS is different and should thus be classified out of Christianity. LDS know they are different, and don't mind being classified out of anything at all, as long as it isn't discipleship of Christ. Sometimes the dispute over Christianity blurs the conflict over salvation. Though in English some TC disdain all -isms and take comfort in adhering to an -ity, other languages might use the term Christianism. LDS might be pleased to leave the party and take their toys with them if the world could coin a suitable expansion of the saving name for their new home, such as Nazarenity, Christship, Sonism, or Messianity. Tom 22:47, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Temple

Mormonism teaches that the temple is a sacred building, dedicated as a "house" for God. Just as God required his people in Old Testament times to build temples, it is essential for modern-day believers to do the same. Sterlingbates 17:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Continuing Revelation

Traditional Christianity teaches that the church's founding and sufficient testimony from God is the Bible. All further revelation is only the Holy Spirit's guidance of the church, opening its eyes to what has already been written, in the process of conforming the church more and more to the revelation of Jesus Christ as he has left testimony through many witnesses, in Scripture. Sterlingbates 17:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism, teaches that God continues to reveal His word through an individual known as a prophet, seer and revelator. Historically, this individual has been the chief member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the governing body of the church. As is taught in Mormonism, this individual is the only one permitted to speak on behalf of God, and therefore what he says is scripture, equal in authority to the Bible. Sterlingbates 17:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Trinity vs. ?

TC teaches that God is an eternal, uncreated being; that Jesus Christ is God's Begotten Son, and of one Being with God; that the Holy Spirit is "the giver of life". Note: I took this from http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm Sterlingbates 17:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Mormonism teaches that God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit (or Holy Ghost) are each individuals; that God and Jesus Christ are resurrected people; and that the Holy Ghost is a spirit. Sterlingbates 17:27, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Priesthood

Mormonism teaches that the priesthood is the authority to act in the name of God, as though He Himself were present. It teaches that the priesthood was lost during the Great Apostasy, and could only be restored by someone holding that priesthood. Mormonism claims that John the Baptist, and the apostles Peter, James and John, visited Earth as resurrected beings and gave Joseph Smith the priesthood. Sterlingbates 17:31, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)